Don't Mention the War. Or Churchill.

[cardigankid]

Russian Troll Bot said:

I'm still interested to know how Cardigan would have defeated Nazism without incurring civilian casualties

Not sure why we are all so focussed on Hitler and WW2, on which we are largely in agreement, when the key issue here is what happened in 1914, and Churchill’s part in it. I cannot see what is going to be achieved by me saying with the unavoidable application of hindsight, what I would have done in Churchill’s place. What I said if you care to check my first post was that he got a lot a lot of innocent people killed. I think that I have justified that in relation to WW2. I am not saying that he should not have fought the Nazis, whatever Bacon and others are alleging.

What is clear is that the shift to bombing London was a strategic mistake for Hitler, as had he continued to attack Fighter Command’s airfields he would probably have won the Battle of Britain. Robert Wright’s book ‘Dowding And the Battle of Britain’ among others makes this very clear. If it was a strategic mistake for Hitler I suspect that it became the same for Churchill. He would, I suspect have achieved more, faster, by focusing on military targets. All of his campaigns had the characteristic of being consistently the method most wasteful of human life to achieve the given objective.

Now, what I recommend you all to do is read a book called The Secret Origins of the First World War by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor, and on the basis of the information and references contained in there, decide for yourselves who was responsible for the outbreak of the First World War, which I would characterise, among a number of strong contenders, and without hyperbola, as the greatest crime in history, and in which I would place Churchill, however great an orator or however engaging a personality, as he undoubtedly was, as one of the prime criminals. I am sorry if it bursts your bubble, as we have all been raised to believe that Britain was always on the side of right and in Churchill as the personification of this. I started from exactly that position, but the more I read, and I have read everything Churchill wrote which has survived in print, the more I realised that we have been fed a false version of history. It is time to face hard reality.

One last thing, then I have said all I plan to. Why do you think, with Brexit looming on the horizon, that we have had three or four films released about Churchill, Dunkirk, the Darkest Hour etc? Could it be that the sheep are being lined up for another roast lamb supper? If you do not learn from history you are doomed to repeat it.

Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 27th October 23:48

[Murph7355]

cardigankid said:

...
One last thing, then I have said all I plan to. Why do you think, with Brexit looming on the horizon, that we have had three or four films released about Churchill, Dunkirk, the Darkest Hour etc? Could it be that the sheep are being lined up for another roast lamb supper? If you do not learn from history you are doomed to repeat it....

When do you think those films were initially conceived?

And which bit of history do you think we should be learning from in this particular respect?

[B210bandit]

spaximus said:

Re writing history is pointless,

It most certainly is not. It is being re-written all the time as new sources are found, new analysis and translations conducted and new facts revealed. To do otherwise is to put your head in the sand.

[spaximus]

B210bandit said:

It most certainly is not. It is being re-written all the time as new sources are found, new analysis and translations conducted and new facts revealed. To do otherwise is to put your head in the sand.

If it is being done as a nod to appeasing certain groups it is not. How far back do you want to go? The British Empire was grown at a different time so to measure it now by today's sensitivities is a pointless exercise. What happened happened, it is how we grow as a world that is important. Trying to hold people today responsible for the actions of hundreds of years ago is bonkers.

[s2art]

cardigankid said:

What is clear is that the shift to bombing London was a strategic mistake for Hitler, as had he continued to attack Fighter Command’s airfields he would probably have won the Battle of Britain. Robert Wright’s book ‘Dowding

Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 27th October 23:48

Utter bks. War gamed to death at Sandhurst in the 60's with many of the original people from both sides. Every variant was a disaster for the Germans.

[B210bandit]

spaximus said:

. Trying to hold people today responsible for the actions of hundreds of years ago is bonkers.

Who is suggesting that?

[Ayahuasca]

jakesmith said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If you think Churchill was a racist, just wait until you hear about the bloke he beat.

Love this!

Me too, and it captures the argument beautifully.

[Russian Troll Bot]

s2art said:

cardigankid said:

What is clear is that the shift to bombing London was a strategic mistake for Hitler, as had he continued to attack Fighter Command’s airfields he would probably have won the Battle of Britain. Robert Wright’s book ‘Dowding

Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 27th October 23:48

Utter bks. War gamed to death at Sandhurst in the 60's with many of the original people from both sides. Every variant was a disaster for the Germans.

Even if the Luftwaffe had achieved air superiority over the South East, the RAF would have just withdrawn further inland, well beyond the range of German fighters

[CaptainSlow]

s2art said:

cardigankid said:

What is clear is that the shift to bombing London was a strategic mistake for Hitler, as had he continued to attack Fighter Command’s airfields he would probably have won the Battle of Britain. Robert Wright’s book ‘Dowding

Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 27th October 23:48

Utter bks. War gamed to death at Sandhurst in the 60's with many of the original people from both sides. Every variant was a disaster for the Germans.

I think you need to read the books that CK agrees with. We all do for our own education.

[s2art]

CaptainSlow said:

s2art said:

cardigankid said:

What is clear is that the shift to bombing London was a strategic mistake for Hitler, as had he continued to attack Fighter Command’s airfields he would probably have won the Battle of Britain. Robert Wright’s book ‘Dowding

Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 27th October 23:48

Utter bks. War gamed to death at Sandhurst in the 60's with many of the original people from both sides. Every variant was a disaster for the Germans.

I think you need to read the books that CK agrees with. We all do for our own education.

Nope. This has been analysed by many experts. The Germans couldnt win this one, and worse if they had tried the utterly suicidal Sealion would have been crushed.

[Ayahuasca]

One thing that surprises me about Churchill is that the Americans have not taken the credit for him - he was after all half American.

[CaptainSlow]

s2art said:

CaptainSlow said:

s2art said:

cardigankid said:

What is clear is that the shift to bombing London was a strategic mistake for Hitler, as had he continued to attack Fighter Command’s airfields he would probably have won the Battle of Britain. Robert Wright’s book ‘Dowding

Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 27th October 23:48

Utter bks. War gamed to death at Sandhurst in the 60's with many of the original people from both sides. Every variant was a disaster for the Germans.

I think you need to read the books that CK agrees with. We all do for our own education.

Nope. This has been analysed by many experts. The Germans couldnt win this one, and worse if they had tried the utterly suicidal Sealion would have been crushed.

I was kidding.

[s2art]

CaptainSlow said:

s2art said:

CaptainSlow said:

s2art said:

cardigankid said:

What is clear is that the shift to bombing London was a strategic mistake for Hitler, as had he continued to attack Fighter Command’s airfields he would probably have won the Battle of Britain. Robert Wright’s book ‘Dowding

Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 27th October 23:48

Utter bks. War gamed to death at Sandhurst in the 60's with many of the original people from both sides. Every variant was a disaster for the Germans.

I think you need to read the books that CK agrees with. We all do for our own education.

Nope. This has been analysed by many experts. The Germans couldnt win this one, and worse if they had tried the utterly suicidal Sealion would have been crushed.

I was kidding.

Parrot required here.

[Ayahuasca]

s2art said:

CaptainSlow said:

s2art said:

cardigankid said:

What is clear is that the shift to bombing London was a strategic mistake for Hitler, as had he continued to attack Fighter Command’s airfields he would probably have won the Battle of Britain. Robert Wright’s book ‘Dowding

Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 27th October 23:48

Utter bks. War gamed to death at Sandhurst in the 60's with many of the original people from both sides. Every variant was a disaster for the Germans.

I think you need to read the books that CK agrees with. We all do for our own education.

Nope. This has been analysed by many experts. The Germans couldnt win this one, and worse if they had tried the utterly suicidal Sealion would have been crushed.

They could however have starved us into submission - amongst many other vital imported resources the fuel to power the RAF came across the Atlantic in a supplyline that the Kriegsmarine might have strangled.

[s2art]

Ayahuasca said:

s2art said:

CaptainSlow said:

s2art said:

cardigankid said:

What is clear is that the shift to bombing London was a strategic mistake for Hitler, as had he continued to attack Fighter Command’s airfields he would probably have won the Battle of Britain. Robert Wright’s book ‘Dowding

Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 27th October 23:48

Utter bks. War gamed to death at Sandhurst in the 60's with many of the original people from both sides. Every variant was a disaster for the Germans.

I think you need to read the books that CK agrees with. We all do for our own education.

Nope. This has been analysed by many experts. The Germans couldnt win this one, and worse if they had tried the utterly suicidal Sealion would have been crushed.

They could however have starved us into submission - amongst many other vital imported resources the fuel to power the RAF came across the Atlantic in a supplyline that the Kriegsmarine might have strangled.

They tried and failed.

[number 46]

'One last thing, then I have said all I plan to. Why do you think, with Brexit looming on the horizon, that we have had three or four films released about Churchill, Dunkirk, the Darkest Hour etc? Could it be that the sheep are being lined up for another roast lamb supper? If you do not learn from history you are doomed to repeat it.'

What load of tinfoil hat bks!!!!! The Dunkirk film was concieved by the director in the 1990's and pre-production began in Jan 2016 !!!!!!!

Edited by number 46 on Sunday 28th October 11:49

[Halb]

cardigankid said:

What is clear is that the shift to bombing London was a strategic mistake for Hitler, as had he continued to attack Fighter Command’s airfields he would probably have won the Battle of Britain. Robert Wright’s book ‘Dowding

Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 27th October 23:48

most likely yes, but the invasion most likely would not have gone ahead.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/here-ho...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/31/batt...

[Phud]

s2art said:

They tried and failed.

That fella Churchill wrote about how close the U boat war came to being lost, one of his major fears, battle for the Atlantic.

We used long range bombers and flying boats to close the gap, the few Condors the Germans had required the catapult launched aircraft from merchantmen.

[spaximus]

B210bandit said:

spaximus said:

. Trying to hold people today responsible for the actions of hundreds of years ago is bonkers.

Who is suggesting that?

I will give you a couple of examples. In Bristol Colston was a merchant who made some of his money from businesses that had slaves as part of it. Throughout his life he was also a huge philanthropist who bestowed huge riches on Bristol for schools Universities and his money is still funding things today.

There has been a concerted effort to take down statues and the biggest thing that has been agreed is that the Colston Hall will be renamed as part of a refurbishment as the campaigners have worn people down.

They want to eradicate his name from the city and rewrite the history so that only the negative remains which is not right. They feel anyone who has benefited from his legacy is just as responsible now for his part in salvery. Balance is important.

Now in the same way that Cardigan Kid is going back over the first world war, hindsight is a wonderful thing, may it have been done differently perhaps, but Churchill was one man, others supported the action against Germany on what they knew at the time. Scholars have the advantage of hindsight and being able to review things over and over again can put a different slant on anything, doesn't change what happened.

The same with our own MP's, they agreed to go to war based on the dossier that proved Saddam had weapons of mass destruction which was inaccurate, so will history decide those people were war mongers and criminals as a result or simply misinformed.

Can we judge events of the past based on today's attitudes, well yes but actions and events happened in that time, so from British having internment camps in South Africa or giving blankets as gifts to Native Americans after they had come out of the infirmaries where they were treating Small Pox, yes we have done some bad things, but that was then.

We should be trying to move on and learn but too many want to use the past to perpetuate divides and to take people from one era and then judge them against today is simply wrong in my mind. And to try to erase that history from either perspective is wrong also.

[Atomic12C]

B210bandit said:

spaximus said:

Re writing history is pointless,

It most certainly is not. It is being re-written all the time as new sources are found, new analysis and translations conducted and new facts revealed. To do otherwise is to put your head in the sand.

Re-interpreting history under modern political correctness regimes is pointless though.
This only goes to serve a tainted viewpoint for modern political agendas.

But otherwise I agree, unearthing new facts about history can and does give greater insight in to historic happenings or places a new perspective on it.
But one has to accept that it is more often than not, that history is written with a political angle to it. The control of knowledge under many nations of the globe is often politically swayed to aid national interest.